1 Introduction
Training neural networks has been proven to be NPhard decades ago Blum & Rivest (1988). At that time, the limited computation power makes neural network training a “mission impossible”. However, as the development of computing device achieves several revolutionary milestones (e.g. GPUs), deep neural networks are found to be practically trainable and can generalize well on real datasets Krizhevsky et al. (2017)
. At the same time, deep learning technique starts to beat the performance of other conventional approaches in a variety of challenging tasks, e.g., computer vision, classification, natural language processing, etc.
Modern neural network training is typically performed by applying firstorder algorithms such as stochastic gradient descent (SGD) (a.k.a backpropagation)
(Linnainmaa, 1976) or its variants, e.g., Adam (Kingma & Ba, 2014), Adagrad (Duchi et al., 2011), etc. Traditional analysis of SGD in nonconvex optimization guarantees the convergence to a stationary point Bottou et al. (2016); Ghadimi et al. (2016). Recently, it has been shown that SGD has the capability to escape strict saddle points Ge et al. (2015); Jin et al. (2017); Reddi et al. (2018a); Daneshmand et al. (2018), and can escape even sharp local minima Kleinberg et al. (2018). While these works provide different insights towards understanding the performance of SGD, they cannot explain the success of SGD that has been widely observed in deep learning applications. Specifically, it is known that SGD is able to train a variety of deep neural networks to achieve zero training loss (either exactly or approximately) for nonnegative loss functions. This implies that SGD can find a
global minimum of deep neural networks at ease. The major challenges towards understanding this phenomenon are in twofold: 1) deep neural networks have complex landscape that cannot be fully understood analytically (Zhou & Liang, 2018); 2) the randomness nature of SGD makes it hard to characterize its convergence on such a complex landscape. These factors prohibit a good understanding of the practical success of SGD in deep learning from a traditional optimization aspect.In this study, we analyze the convergence of SGD in the above phenomenon by exploiting the following two critical properties. First, the fact that SGD can train neural networks to zero loss value implies that the nonnegative loss functions on all data samples share a common global minimum. Second, our experiments establish strong empirical evidences that SGD (when training the loss to zero value) follows a starconvex path. Based on these properties, we formally establish the convergence of SGD to a global minimizer. Our work conveys a useful insight that although the landscape of neural networks can be complicated, the actual optimization path that SGD takes turns out to be remarkably simple and sufficient to guarantee the converge to a global minimum.
1.1 Our Contributions
We focus on the empirical observation that SGD can train various neural networks to achieve zero loss, and validate that SGD follows an epochwise starconvex path in empirical optimization processes. Based on such a property, we prove that the Euclidean distance between the variable sequence generated by SGD and a global minimizer decreases at an epoch level. We also show that the subsequences of iterations that correspond to the same data sample is a minimizing sequence of the loss corresponding to that sample.
By further empirical exploration, we validate that SGD follows an iterationwise starconvex path during the major part of the training process. Based on such a property, we prove that the entire variable sequence generated by SGD converges to a global minimizer of the objective function. Then, we show that the convergence of SGD induces a selfregularization on its variance, i.e., the variance of stochastic gradients vanishes as SGD converges in such a context.
From a technical perspective, we characterize the intrinsic deterministic convergence property of SGD when the optimization path is well regularized, rather than the performance on average or in probability established in the existing studies. Our results provide a novel and promising aspect to understand SGDbased optimization in deep learning. Furthermore, our analysis of SGD explores the limiting convergence property of the subsequences that correspond to individual data samples, which is in sharp contrast to the traditional treatment of SGD that depends on its random nature and bounds on variance. Hence, our proof technique can be of independent interest to the community.
1.2 Related Work
As there are extensive literature on SGD, we only mention the highly relevant studies here. Theoretical foundations of SGD have been developed in the optimization community (Robbins & Monro, 1951; Nemirovski et al., 2009; Lan, 2012; Ghadimi et al., 2016; Ghadimi & Lan, 2016)
, and have attracted much attention from the machine learning community in the past decade
(Schmidt et al., 2017; Defazio et al., 2014; Johnson & Zhang, 2013; Li et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018). In general nonconvex optimization, it is known that SGD converges to a stationary point under a bounded variance assumption and a diminishing learning rate Bottou et al. (2016); Ghadimi et al. (2016). Other variants of SGD that are designed for deep learning have been proposed, e.g., Adam (Kingma & Ba, 2014), AMSgrad Reddi et al. (2018b), Adagrad (Duchi et al., 2011), etc, and their convergence properties have been studied in the context of online convex regret minimization.Needell et al. (2014); Moulines & Bach (2011) show that SGD converges at a linear rate when the objective function is strongly convex and has a unique common global minimum. Recently, several studies show that SGD has the capability to escape strict saddle points Ge et al. (2015); Jin et al. (2017); Reddi et al. (2018a); Daneshmand et al. (2018). Kleinberg et al. (2018) considers functions with onepoint strong convexity, and shows that the randomness of SGD has an intrinsic smoothing effect that can avoid convergence to sharp minimum. Our paper exploits a very different notion of starconvexity path of SGD, which is a much weaker condition than those in the previous studies.
2 Problem Setup and Preliminaries
Neural network training can be formulated as the following finitesum optimization problem.
(P) 
where there are in total training data samples. The loss function that corresponds to the th data sample is denoted by for
, and the vector to be minimized in the problem (e.g., network weights in deep learning) are denoted by
. In general, problem (P) is a nonconvex optimization problem, and we make the following standard assumptions regarding the objective function.Assumption 1.
The loss functions in problem (P) satisfy:

[leftmargin=*]

They are continuously differentiable, and their gradients are Lipschitz continuous;

For every , .
The conditions imposed by creftypecap 1 are standard in analysis of nonconvex optimization. In specific, item 1 is a standard smoothness assumption on nonconvex loss functions. Item 2 assumes that the loss functions are bounded below, which is satisfied by many loss functions in deep learning, e.g., MSE loss, crossentropy loss, NLL loss, etc, which are all nonnegative.
Next, we introduce the following fact that is widely observed in training overparameterized deep neural networks, which we assume to hold throughout the paper.
Observation 1 (Global minimum in deep learning).
The objective function in problem (P) with nonnegative loss can achieve zero value at certain . Thus, is also a common global minimizer for all individual loss . More formally, denote as the set of global minimizers of for . Then, the set of common global minimizers, i.e., , is nonempty and bounded.
creftypecap 1 is a common observation in deep learning applications, because deep neural networks (especially in the overparameterized regime) typically have enough capacity to fit all training data samples, and therefore the model has a global minimum shared by the loss functions on all data samples. To elaborate more, if the total loss attains zero value at , then for all must achieve zero value at as they are nonnegative. Thus, is a common global minimum of all individual loss for all . Such a fact plays a critical role in understanding the convergence of SGD in training neural networks.
Next, we introduce our algorithm of interest – stochastic gradient descent (SGD). Specifically, to solve problem (P), SGD starts at an initial vector and generates a variable sequence according to the following update rule.
where denotes the learning rate, and corresponds to the sampled data index at iteration
. In this study, we consider the practical cyclic sampling scheme with reshuffle (also referred to as the random sampling without replacement) to generate the random variable
. To elaborate the notation, we rewrite every iteration number as , where denotes the index of epoch that iteration belongs to and denotes the corresponding iteration index in that epoch. We further denote as the random permutation of in the th epoch, and denote as its th element. Then, the sampled data index at iteration can be expressed as3 Approaching Global Minimum Epochwisely
3.1 An Interesting Empirical Observation of SGD Path
In this subsection, we provide empirical observations on the algorithm path of SGD in training neural networks. To be specific, we train a standard multilayer perceptron (MLP) network
Krizhevsky (2009), a variant of Alexnet and a variant of Inception network Zhang et al. (2017a) on the CIFAR10 dataset Krizhevsky (2009)using SGD under crossentropy loss. In all experiments, we adopt a constant learning rate (0.01 for MLP and Alexnet, 0.1 for Inception) and a constant minibatch size 128. We discard all other optimization features such as momentum, weight decay, dropout and batch normalization, etc, in order to observe the essential property of SGD.
In each experiment, we train the network for a sufficient number of epochs to achieve nearzero training loss (i.e., almost global minimum), and record the weight parameters along the iteration path of SGD. We denote the weight parameters produced by SGD in the last iteration as , which has a near zero loss, and evaluate the Euclidean distance between the weight parameters produced by SGD and along the iteration path. We plot the results in Figure 1. It can be seen that the training losses for all three networks fluctuate along the iteration path, implying that the algorithm passes through complex landscapes. However, the Euclidean distance between the weight parameters and the final output is monotonically decreasing epochwise along the SGD path for all three networks. This shows that the variable sequence generated by SGD approaches the global minimum in a remarkably stable way. This motivates us to explore the underlying mechanism that yields such interesting observations.
In the next two subsections, we first propose a property that the algorithm path of SGD satisfies, based on which we formally prove that the variable sequence generated by SGD admits the behavior observed in Figure 1. Then, we provide empirical evidences to validate such a property of SGD path in practical SGD training.
3.2 Epochwise Starconvex Path
In this subsection, we introduce the notion of the epochwise starconvex path for SGD and establish its theoretical implications on the convergence of SGD. We validate that SGD satisfies such a property in practical neural network training in Section 3.3.
Recall the conventional definition of starconvexity. Let be a global minimizer of a smooth function . Then, is said to be starconvex at a point provided that
Starconvexity can be intuitively understood as convexity between a reference point and a global minimizer . Such a property ensures that the negative gradient points to the desired direction for minimization.
Next, we define the notion of epochwise starconvex path, which requires the starconvexity to be held cumulatively over each epoch.
Definition 1 (Epochwise starconvex path).
We call a path generated by SGD epochwise starconvex if it satisfies: For all epochs and for a fixed (see creftypecap 1 for definition),
We note that the property introduced by Definition 1 is not about the landscape geometry of a loss function, which can be complex as observed in the training loss curves shown in Figure 1. Rather, it characterizes the interaction between the algorithm and the loss function along the optimization path. Such a property is generally weaker than the global starconvexity, and is observed to be held in practical neural network training (see Section 3.3).
Based on Definition 1, we obtain the following property of SGD.
Theorem 1 (Epochwise diminishing distance).
Let creftypecap 1 hold and apply SGD with learning rate to solve problem (P). Assume SGD follows an epochwise starconvex path for a certain . Then, the variable sequence generated by SGD satisfies, for all epochs ,
(1) 
creftypecap 1 proves that the variable sequence generated by SGD approaches a global minimizer at an epoch level, which is consistent with the empirical observations made in Figure 1. Therefore, the property of epochwise starconvex path of SGD is sufficient to explain such desirable empirical observations, although the loss function can be highly nonconvex and has complex landscape.
Under the cyclic sampling scheme with reshuffle, SGD samples every data sample once per epoch. Consider the loss on the th data sample for a fixed . One can check that the iterations in which the loss is sampled form a subsequence , where is the inverse permutation mapping of , i.e., if and only if . Next, we characterize the convergence properties of these subsequences corresponding to the loss functions on individual data samples.
Theorem 2 (Minimizing subsequences).
Under the same settings as those of creftypecap 1, the subsequences for satisfy

[leftmargin = *]

They are minimizing sequences for the corresponding loss functions, i.e.,

Every limit point of is in .
creftypecap 2 characterizes the limiting behavior of the subsequences that correspond to the loss functions on individual data samples. Essentially, the results in items 1 and 2 show that each subsequence is a minimizing sequence for the corresponding loss .
Discussion
We note that Theorems 1 and 2 characterize the epochwise convergence property of SGD in a deterministic way. The underlying technical reason is that the common global minimizer structure in creftypecap 1 suppresses the randomness induced by sampling and reshuffling of SGD, and ensures a common direction along which SGD can approach the global minimum on all individual data samples. Such a result is very different from traditional understanding of SGD where randomness and variance play a central role Nemirovski et al. (2009); Ghadimi et al. (2016).
3.3 Verifying Epochwise Starconvex Path of SGD
In this subsection, we conduct experiments to validate the epochwise starconvex path of SGD introduced in Definition 1.
We train the aforementioned three types of neural networks, i.e., MLP, Alexnet and Inception, on CIFAR10 Krizhevsky (2009) and MNIST Lecun et al. (1998)
dataset using SGD. The hyperparameter settings are the same as those mentioned in
Section 3.1. We train these networks for a sufficient number of epochs to achieve a nearzero training loss (i.e., nearglobal minimum). We record the variable sequence generated by SGD along the entire algorithm path, and set to be the final output of SGD. Then, we evaluate the value of the summation term in Definition 1 for each epoch. The value of this summation term for each epoch is denoted as residual . By Definition 1, SGD path in the th epoch is epochwise starconvex provided that .Figure 2 shows the results of our experiments. In all subfigures, the red horizontal curve denotes the zero value baseline, and the other curve denotes the residual . It can be seen from Figure 2 that, on the MNIST dataset (second row), the entire path of SGD satisfies epochwise starconvexity for all three networks. On the CIFAR10 dataset (first row), we observe an epochwise starconvex path of SGD after several epochs of the initial phase of training. This can be due to the more complex landscape of the loss function on the CIFAR10 dataset, so that it takes SGD several epochs to enter a basin of attraction of the global minimum.
Our empirical findings strongly support the validity of the epochwise starconvex path of SGD in Definition 1. Therefore, creftypecap 1 establishes an empiricallyverified theory for characterizing the convergence property of SGD in training neural networks at an epoch level. In particular, it is well justified to successfully explain the stable epochwise convergence behavior observed in Figure 1.
4 Convergence to a Global Minimizer
The result developed in creftypecap 1 shows that the variable sequence generated by SGD monotonically approaches a global minimizer at an epoch level. However, it does not guarantee the convergence of the variable sequence to a global minimizer (which requires the distance between SGD iterates and the global minimizer reduces to zero). We further explore such a convergence issue in the following two subsections. We first define a notion of an iterationwise starconvex path for SGD, based on which we formally establish the convergence of SGD to a global minimizer. Then, we provide empirical evidences to support the satisfaction of the iterationwise starconvex path by SGD.
4.1 Iterationwise Starconvex Path
We introduce the following definition of an iterationwise starconvex path for SGD.
Definition 2 (Iterationwise starconvex path).
We call a path generated by SGD iterationwise starconvex if it satisfies: For all and for every ,
(2) 
Compared to Definition 1 which defines the starconvex path of SGD at an epoch level, Definition 2 characterizes the starconvexity of SGD along the optimization path at a more refined iteration level. As we show in the result below, such a stronger property helps to regularize the convergence property of SGD at an iteration level, and is sufficient to guarantee convergence.
Theorem 3 (Convergence to global minimizer).
Let Assumption 1 hold and apply SGD with learning rate to solve problem (P). Assume SGD follows an iterationwise starconvex path. Then, the sequence generated by SGD converges to a global minimizer.
creftypecap 3 formally establishes the convergence of SGD to a global minimizer along an iterationwise starconvex path. The main idea of the proof is to establish a consensus of the minimizing subsequences that are studied in creftypecap 2, i.e., all these subsequences converge to the same limit – a common global minimizer of the loss functions over all the data samples. More specifically, our proof strategy consists of three steps: 1) show that every limit point of each subsequence is a common global minimizer; 2) prove that each subsequence has a unique limit point; 3) show that all these subsequences share the same unique limit point, which is a common global minimizer. We believe that the proof technique here can be of independent interest to the community.
Our analysis in creftypecap 3 characterizes the intrinsic deterministic convergence property of SGD, which is an alternative view of the SGD path: It performs gradient descent on an individual loss component at each iteration. The starconvexity along the iteration path pushes the algorithm towards the common global minimizer. Such progress is shared across all data samples in every iteration and eventually leads to the convergence of SGD.
We also note that the convergence result in creftypecap 3 is based on a constant learning rate, which is typically used in practical training. This is very different from and much more desirable than the diminishing learning rate adopted in traditional analysis of SGD Nemirovski et al. (2009), which is a necessity to mitigate the negative effects caused by the variance of SGD. Furthermore, creftypecap 3 shows that SGD converges to a common global minimizer where the gradient of loss function on all data samples vanish, and we therefore obtain the following interesting corollary.
Corollary 1 (Vanishing variance).
Under the same settings of those of creftypecap 3, the variance of stochastic gradients sampled by SGD converges to zero as iteration goes to infinity.
Thus, upon convergence, the common global minimizer structure in deep learning leads to a selfvariancereducing effect on SGD. Such a desirable effect is the core property of stochastic variancereduced algorithms that reduces sample complexity Johnson & Zhang (2013). Hence, this justifies in part that SGD is a sampleefficient algorithm in learning deep models.
Discussion
We want to mention that many nonconvex sensing models have an underlying true signal and hence naturally have common global minimizers, e.g., phase retrieval Zhang et al. (2017b), lowrank matrix recovery Tu et al. (2016), blind deconvolution Li et al. (2018), etc. This is also the case for some neural network sensing problems Zhong et al. (2017). Also, these problems have been shown to satisfy the socalled gradient dominance condition and the regularity condition locally around the global minimizers Zhou et al. (2016); Tu et al. (2016); Li et al. (2018); Zhong et al. (2017); Zhou & Liang (2017). These two geometric properties imply the starconvexity of the objective function, which necessarily imply the epochwise and iterationwise starconvex path of SGD. Therefore, our results also have implications on the convergence guarantee of SGD for solving these problems as well.
4.2 Verifying Iterationwise Starconvex Path of SGD
In this subsection, we conduct experiments to validate the iterationwise starconvex path of SGD introduced in Definition 2.
We train the aforementioned three types of neural networks, i.e., MLP, Alexnet and Inception, on CIFAR10 and MNIST datasets using SGD. The hyperparameter settings are the same as those mentioned in Section 3.1. We train these networks for a sufficient number of epochs to achieve a nearzero training loss. Due to the demanding requirement for storage, we record the variable sequence generated by SGD for all iterations in every tenth epoch, and set to be the final output of SGD. Then, for all the iterations in every tenth epoch, we evaluate the corresponding values of the terms on the left hand side in eq. 2 (denoted as ). Then, we report the fraction of number of iterations that satisfy the iterationwise starconvexity (i.e., ) within such an epoch.
In all subfigures of Figure 3, the red curves denote the training loss and the blue bars denote the fraction of iterations that satisfy the iterationwise starconvexity within such an epoch. It can be seen from Figure 3 that, for all three networks on the MNIST dataset (second row), the path of SGD satisfies iterationwise starconvexity for most of the iterations, except in the last several epochs where the training loss (see the red curve) already well saturates at zero value. In fact, the convergence is typically observed well before such a point. This is because when the training loss is very close to the global minimum (i.e., the gradient is very close to zero), small perturbation of the landscape easily deviates the SGD path from the desired starconvexity. Hence, our experiments demonstrate that SGD follows the iterationwise starconvex path up to the convergence occurs. Furthermore, on the CIFAR10 dataset (first row of Figure 3), we observe a strong evidence for the iterationwise starconvex path of SGD after several epochs of the initial phase of training. This implies that the loss landscape on a more challenging dataset can be more complex.
Our empirical findings support the validity of the iterationwise starconvex path of SGD in a major part of practical training processes. Therefore, our convergence guarantee developed in creftypecap 3 for SGD well justifies its practical success.
We next conduct further experiments to demonstrate that SGD follows the iterationwise starconvex path likely only for successful trainings to zero loss value, where a shared global minimum among all individual loss functions is achieved. To verify such a thought, we train an MLP using SGD on the CIFAR10 dataset under various settings with the number of hidden neurons ranging from 16 to 256. The results are shown in
Figure 4, from which we observe that the training loss (i.e., red curves) converges to a nonzero value when the number of hidden neurons is small, implying that the algorithm likely attains a suboptimal point which is not a common global minimum shared by all individual loss functions. In such trainings, we observe that the corresponding SGD paths have much fewer iterations satisfying the iterationwise starconvexity compared to the successful training instances shown in Figure 3. Thus, such empirical findings partially suggest that iterationwise starconvex SGD path more likely occurs when SGD can find a common global minimum, e.g., training overparameterized networks to zero loss value.5 Conclusion
In this paper, we propose an epochwise starconvex property of the optimization path of SGD, which we validate in various experiments. Based on such a property, we show that SGD approaches a global minimum at an epoch level. Then, we further examine the property at an iteration level, and empirically show that it is satisfied in a major part of training processes. As we prove theoretically, such a more refined property guarantees the convergence of SGD to a global minimum, and the algorithm enjoys a selfvariancereducing effect. We believe that our study sheds light on the success of SGD in training neural networks from both empirical aspect and theoretical aspect.
References

Blum & Rivest (1988)
A. Blum and R. L. Rivest.
Training a 3node neural network is NPcomplete.
In
Proc. 1st Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory (COLT)
, pp. 9–18, 1988.  Bottou et al. (2016) L. Bottou, F. E. Curtis, and J. Nocedal. Optimization methods for largescale machine learning. ArXiv: 1606.04838, June 2016.
 Daneshmand et al. (2018) H. Daneshmand, J. M. Kohler, A. Lucchi, and T. Hofmann. Escaping saddles with stochastic gradients. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2018.
 Defazio et al. (2014) A. Defazio, F. Bach, and S. LacosteJulien. SAGA: A fast incremental gradient method with support for nonstrongly convex composite objectives. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pp. 1646–1654. 2014.
 Duchi et al. (2011) J. Duchi, E. Hazan, and Y. Singer. Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 12:2121–2159, July 2011.

Ge et al. (2015)
R. Ge, F. Huang, C. Jin, and Y. Yuan.
Escaping from saddle points — online stochastic gradient for tensor decomposition.
In Proc. 28th Conference on Learning Theory (COLT), volume 40, pp. 797–842, 03–06 Jul 2015.  Ghadimi & Lan (2016) S. Ghadimi and G. Lan. Accelerated gradient methods for nonconvex nonlinear and stochastic programming. Mathematical Programming, 156(1):59–99, Mar 2016.
 Ghadimi et al. (2016) S. Ghadimi, G. Lan, and H. Zhang. Minibatch stochastic approximation methods for nonconvex stochastic composite optimization. Mathematical Programming, 155(1):267–305, Jan 2016.
 Jin et al. (2017) C. Jin, R. Ge, P. Netrapalli, S. M. Kakade, and M. I. Jordan. How to escape saddle points efficiently. In Proc. 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 70, pp. 1724–1732, Aug 2017.
 Johnson & Zhang (2013) R. Johnson and T. Zhang. Accelerating stochastic gradient descent using predictive variance reduction. In Proc. 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), pp. 315–323, 2013.
 Kingma & Ba (2014) D. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 12 2014.
 Kleinberg et al. (2018) B. Kleinberg, Y. Li, and Y. Yuan. An alternative view: When does SGD escape local minima? In Proc. 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 80, pp. 2698–2707, Jul 2018.
 Krizhevsky (2009) A. Krizhevsky. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Technical report, 2009.
 Krizhevsky et al. (2017) A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Communications of the ACM, 60(6):84–90, May 2017.
 Lan (2012) G. Lan. An optimal method for stochastic composite optimization. Mathematical Programming, 133(1):365–397, Jun 2012.
 Lecun et al. (1998) Y. Lecun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradientbased learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324, Nov 1998.
 Li et al. (2017) Q. Li, Y. Zhou, Y. Liang, and P. K. Varshney. Convergence analysis of proximal gradient with momentum for nonconvex optimization. In Proc. 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 70, pp. 2111–2119, Aug 2017.
 Li et al. (2018) X. Li, S. Ling, T. Strohmer, and K. Wei. Rapid, robust, and reliable blind deconvolution via nonconvex optimization. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 2018.
 Linnainmaa (1976) S. Linnainmaa. Taylor expansion of the accumulated rounding error. Numerical Mathematics, 16:146–160, 1976.

Moulines & Bach (2011)
E. Moulines and F. R Bach.
Nonasymptotic analysis of stochastic approximation algorithms for machine learning.
In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2011.  Needell et al. (2014) D. Needell, R. Ward, and N. Srebro. Stochastic gradient descent, weighted sampling, and the randomized Kaczmarz algorithm. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2014.
 Nemirovski et al. (2009) A. Nemirovski, A. Juditsky, G. Lan, and A. Shapiro. Robust stochastic approximation approach to stochastic programming. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 19(4):1574–1609, 2009.

Reddi et al. (2018a)
S. Reddi, M. Zaheer, S. Sra, B. Poczos, F. Bach, R. Salakhutdinov, and
A. Smola.
A generic approach for escaping saddle points.
In
Proc. 21st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS)
, volume 84, pp. 1233–1242, Apr 2018a.  Reddi et al. (2018b) S. J. Reddi, S. Kale, and S. Kumar. On the convergence of Adam and beyond. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018b.
 Robbins & Monro (1951) H. Robbins and S. Monro. A stochastic approximation method. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(3):400–407, Sep 1951.
 Schmidt et al. (2017) M. Schmidt, N. Le Roux, and F. Bach. Minimizing finite sums with the stochastic average gradient. Mathematical Programming, 162(1):83–112, Mar 2017.
 Tu et al. (2016) S. Tu, R. Boczar, M. Simchowitz, M. Soltanolkotabi, and B. Recht. Lowrank solutions of linear matrix equations via Procrustes flow. In Proc. 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 964–973, 2016.
 Wang et al. (2018) Z. Wang, K. Ji, Y. Zhou, Y. Liang, and V. Tarokh. SpiderBoost: A class of faster variancereduced algorithms for nonconvex optimization. ArXiv:1810.10690, October 2018.
 Zhang et al. (2017a) C. Zhang, S. Bengio, M. Hardt, B. Recht, and O. Vinyals. Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017a.
 Zhang et al. (2017b) H. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Y. Liang, and Y. Chi. A nonconvex approach for phase retrieval: reshaped Wirtinger flow and incremental algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 18(141):1–35, 2017b.
 Zhong et al. (2017) K. Zhong, Z. Song, P. Jain, P. L. Bartlett, and I. S. Dhillon. Recovery guarantees for onehiddenlayer neural networks. In Proc. 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 70, pp. 4140–4149, Aug 2017.
 Zhou & Liang (2017) Y. Zhou and Y. Liang. Characterization of gradient dominance and regularity conditions for neural networks. ArXiv:1710.06910v2, Oct 2017.
 Zhou & Liang (2018) Y. Zhou and Y. Liang. Critical points of linear neural networks: Analytical forms and landscape properties. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018.
 Zhou et al. (2016) Y. Zhou, H. Zhang, and Y. Liang. Geometrical properties and accelerated gradient solvers of nonconvex phase retrieval. In Proc. 54th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pp. 331–335, 2016.
Appendix A Proof of creftypecap 1
Observe that the SGD update can be rewritten as the following optimization step
Note that the function is linear, and we further obtain that for all ,
where (i) uses the update rule of SGD. Rearranging the above inequality yields that
(3) 
On the other hand, by smoothness of the loss function, we obtain that
(4) 
where (i) follows from eq. 3 and (ii) is due to the choice of learning rate. Summing the above inequality over from to yields that, for every in Definition 1,
(5) 
where the last inequality follows from the starconvex path of SGD in Definition 1. The desired result follows from the above inequality and the fact that for all . Moreover, we conclude that the sequence is bounded. By continuity of for all and the update rule of SGD, we further conclude that the entire sequence is bounded.
Appendix B Proof of creftypecap 2
We first collect some facts. Recall that is nonempty and bounded. Consider any fixed and recall that , . Then, one can check that the iterations with form the subsequence .
Next, we prove item 1. Fix any and sum eq. 4 over from to yields that, for every in Definition 1,
Further summing the above inequality over from to and rearranging, we obtain that
(6) 
where the last inequality follows from the the starconvex path of SGD in Definition 1. Consider the term in eq. 6 along the iterations with . Such term can be rewritten as . Suppose for certain the sequence does not converge to its global minimum . Then, by the cyclic sampling scheme with reshuffle, we conclude that the first summation term in eq. 6 diverges to as . Also, note that the last two summation terms have finite number of elements, which are all bounded as is bounded. Therefore, we conclude that the sequences for converge to for all candidates in Definition 1. Next, consider the case in which there are multiple such candidate s in Definition 1. Then, the previous sentence states that converges to multiple limits, which cannot happen for a convergent sequence. This leads to a contradiction. Consider the other case that there is only one such candidate in Definition 1. Then, we conclude that all the sequences for converge to , i.e., the entire sequence converges to such unique common global minimizer. This contradicts with our assumption that does not converge to for certain . Combining both cases, we obtain the desired claim of item 1.
Next, we prove item 2. Note that sequence is bounded . Fix any and consider any limit point of , i.e., along a proper subsequence. From item 1 we know that . This, together with the continuity of the loss function, implies that for all .
Appendix C Proof of creftypecap 3
Recall that eq. 4 shows that, for all ,
(7)  
(8) 
where (i) follows from the iterationwise starconvex path in Definition 2. Since , we conclude that for all and every ,
(9) 
Next, consider any , we show that every limit point of is in . By eq. 9, we know that is decreasing. Consider a limit point associated with the subsequence such that . Then, for all we know that, for any fixed ,
(10) 
Next, we prove by contradiction. Suppose that . Then, eq. 10 implies that for all large and any . Combining this conclusion with item 2 of creftypecap 2, it follows that all the limit points of are in . Since , it follows that the limit points of are different from those of for any . Now consider a subsequence . Also, consider the subsequence with . By the cyclic sampling with reshuffle, we know that with probability one there is a subsequence of such that (this occurs with a constant probability in every epoch). Applying eq. 9 along this subsequence, we conclude that
(11) 
Let in the above equation, we conclude that , i.e., is a limit point of . Note that is a limit point of . This contradicts our previous conclusion that the limit points of must be different from those of for . Thus, we must have for all , every limit point of is in . Then, by eq. 9 we further conclude that for all
(12) 
Note that . Thus, for all the above inequality implies that
(13) 
This shows that has a unique limit point , which is an element of . Next, consider the limits of the sequences , respectively. By eq. 9 and the fact that , we conclude that
Thus, , and we conclude that for all , i.e., the whole sequence has a unique limit point in .
Appendix D Supplementary Experiments
In this section, we provide more experiments to illustrate the starconvexity property of the SGD path from other different aspects.
Verification of epochwise starconvexity with different reference points
In Figure 5 we verify the epochwise starconvexity of the SGD path by setting the reference point to be the output of SGD at different intermediate epochs (i.e., 60,80,100,120 epochs), where the SGD has already saturated close to zero loss. The experiments are conducted by training the Alexnet and MLP on Cifar10 using SGD. As can be seen from Figure 5, the epochwise starconvexity still hold (i.e., ) after certain epochs in the initial training phase. This shows that the observed starconvex path does not depend on the choice of reference point (so long as they achieve nearzero loss).
Growth of weight norm in neural network training
In Figure 6, we present the growth of the norm of network weights in training different neural networks on Cifar10 under the crossentropy loss. It can be seen from the figure that the norm of the weights increases slowly (logarithmly) after the training loss achieves nearzero. This is because the gradient is nearly zero when the training is close to the global minimum, and therefore the updates of the weights are very small.
Verification of starconvexity under MSE loss
In Figure 7, we verify the epochwise starconvexity by training different networks on MNIST dataset under the MSE loss (i.e., loss). We note that unlike the crossentropy loss, zero value can be achieved by the MSE loss. We set the reference point to be the output of SGD at the 40th epoch. It can be seen from the figure that the residue is negative along the entire optimization path, demonstrating that the SGD path satisfies the epochwise starconvexity under the MSE loss.
Comments
There are no comments yet.